More reform for New York

Consider the possibilities, New York. State government no longer shows signs of being so thoroughly broken. Budgets are passed on time — keeping spending in check, for a change, and chipping away at the deficit. The state’s tax laws are fairer than they used to be. Gay marriage has been legal for months.

So what should top the agenda for the final two months of a legislative session that’s mercifully free of impending crisis? This: Reduce the onerous influence of money on state politics and government.

That’s one area where New York still stands out as an example of government failing to serve the very people it’s supposed to represent. The costs of running for public office are too high here, and the people who supply the money — less than 1 percent of the state’s adult population, close to the lowest rate in the country — are disproportionately high rollers and special interests.

Just 6 percent of the money in the 2010 elections in New York came from donors who gave $250 or less, according to research by Michael Malbin, a University at Albany professor and director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

Seventy-eight percent of the money came from either donors who gave at least $1,000 or outfits like the political action committees that represent everything from corporations to unions. Their donations can go as high as $8,200 for state Assembly races and $16,800 for state Senate elections.

What to do?

For starters, the Legislature needs to lower those contribution limits, which are up to 12 times higher in New York than they are at the federal level. Then legislators must pass the public campaign financing plan pushed by Governor Cuomo.

Matching small donations with public funds, as Mr. Cuomo urges, makes the contributions from ordinary voters worth exponentially more, research by the Campaign Finance Institute finds. New York City, for example, does a 6-1 match of contributions of up to $175. Had such a system been in place statewide in 2010, it would have boosted small donors’ share to 30 percent of the money spent in that election cycle. More such donations, of course, would push that percentage higher.

That’s an investment that would likely lead to more people voting and getting more involved in political campaigns, says Mr. Malbin. It’s about time: No state had lower participation in the last election than New York. Combine that with tighter rules on how campaign money is spent, particularly for personal uses, and a system distorted by a few well-heeled people and groups might better live up to its billing as a government of the people.

The possibility of a surge in civic engagement serves as a good counterargument to those who resist public campaign financing. To be sure, there’s some resonance to the argument offered by the Republicans who control the state Senate that private political campaigns are the wrong place for a cash-strapped state to spend what would come to about $30 million a year.

But they need to answer this: If we can’t afford public campaign financing, can we afford the low voter participation and the control that the tiny elite who do give money to candidates have over elections? That’s the true cost of the status quo.

Get used to such questions, New Yorkers. They’ll be asked again and again, all in the quest to further revive and reform state government.

4 Responses

Why not give, to the incumbents in New York’s corrupt state government, control of election financing? After all, would incumbents dare to corrupt the campaign finance system to give themselves advantages against challengers? Would the incumbents really game the system, the way they do with redistricting, say, just to keep themselves in their highly lucrative positions of power? What could go wrong?

Bradley Smith former FEC commissioner put it well:
“Imagine a government policy that funds an important civic function, but is not mandatory; which is paid for not through taxes, but through voluntary contributions; and which adds nothing to the government debt. Sound good? This is a description of the United States’ traditional system of privately funded political campaigns. And the best is yet to come: the cost falls almost entirely on the wealthiest Americans.”

Hmmm, it’s the TU’s opinion that now is the time for campaign finance reform. You know, like our transparent Governor wants. The transparent Governor that the TU can’t see through, and remains silent on. The Committee to Save NY has gotten caught with its finger in the cake. It would seem reasonable if the TU is such an advocate of campaign finance reform in NY, it would be following up on this right away. Perhaps, the TU should “shake, not stir” the Governor on this in light of the recent reporting of the largest political contributor in NY,and Cuomo backer, who can’t seem to “follow the rules” and/or makes their own. It seems the TU wants the cake, and to eat it too!